How a neoconservative thinks: the Victoria Nuland example

Eric Zuesse (blogs at

A neoconservative thinks in self-‘justifying’ labels such as “democracy” “freedom” “human rights” and “free-market” — not in meanings; not in what those symbols, when used by a neocon, refer to in the real world. Certainly not about what their consequences have been upon the poorer 99.9% of the public.

A neoconservative is using those labels so as to present oneself publicly as being for, what the person in the actual world turns out to be what they declare themselves to have been against; and as being against, what the person in the actual world turns out to be what they declare themselves to be for, such as democracy, freedom, human rights, and a free market. However, since these individuals are actually advocates for dictatorship, enslavement, and mega-corporate control over Governments (i.e., for fascism); the actual beneficiaries of those policies — the super-rich who own and control the international corporations that control their Governments — are the real beneficiaries of (and the financial backers of) neoconservatives and neoconservatism.

One of the leading (if not the top) neoconservatives is Victoria Nuland, whom U.S. President Obama selected to plan and run the U.S. coup that in February 2014 started the war in Ukraine by overthrowing the internationally neutralist and democratically elected President of Ukraine and installing into power Yatsenyuk, who immediately appointed a rabidly pro-U.S.-Government and anti-Russian junta, who replaced the top generals by ones who were committed to a plan to ethnically-cleanse enough pro-Russians out of Ukraine in order so that the remaining Ukrainians would ‘democratically’ elect other rabidly anti-Russian politicians, so as for the newly Obama-installed Ukrainian regime to have lasting power, in order for it to be something that even the nearest of the existing NATO nations can’t possibly be — a mere 317 miles or five minutes away from blitz-nuking Russia’s central command in The Kremlin, thus checkmating and so conquering Russia. Nuland did what Obama wanted her to do; and, in fact, when Petro Poroshenko, the first of the s‘elected’ Obama stooges (as opposed to Yatsenyuk, who was only appointed to lead Ukraine) publicly promised to militarily retake for Ukraine both Crimea and Donbass, Nuland’s nominal boss, Secretary of State John Kerry, told Poroshenko that the U.S. Government would not support that aggressive talk, and Kerry’s nominal subordinate Nuland promptly told Poroshenko to ignore what Kerry had said; and Obama then backed Nuland on this, not Kerry. Then, yet again, the same thing happened on Syria-policy, when Kerry negotiated with Russia’s Foreign Minister Lavrov an agreement to allow Russia to bomb Syria’s Al Qaeda, which was the U.S. Government’s main proxy-force fighting to overthrow Syria’s Government and to replace it with one that would be appointed by the Sauds, Nuland was extremely opposed to this agreement; and, in the article I wrote then about that, you can see the haughty disdainful look on her face when, under Kerry’s guidance, she is required to shake Putin’s hand at the agreement’s signing-ceremony, and her State Department colleagues show pained expressions on their faces as they see her shaking Putin’s hand with that scowl on her face (Putin’s face displaying a courteous smile, contrasting starkly against Nuland’s deeply contemptuous scowl). And she is a 35-year-long leading U.S. diplomat, no mere tyro — this is the sort of thing that rises to the top in the U.S. Government’s diplomatic corps. So, this signing-event seemed to be an instance when Obama did not back Nuland against Kerry. However, America’s signature on that agreement turned out to have meant nothing, because promptly the U.S. military bombed Syria’s forces who were protecting Syria’s main oil-well area, in Deir Zor, and ISIS forces moved in to take them over, thus violating the just-signed U.S.-Russia agreement. And Obama kept Nuland on; Kerry kept quiet and never publicly complained about what a neocon Obama actually was. Obama not only retained Nuland but he issued no apology when his ‘Defense’ Department promptly violated the agreement that his Government had just signed. The only non-neocon thing that Obama ever did was the Iran nuclear agreement, which Trump promptly reversed. It had been the only thing that Obama did which was less neoconservative than what Nuland wanted. (Nuland in this interview says that Trump is a danger because he might want to withdraw the U.S. Government from — effectively to terminate — NATO.)

So, recently, Biden, who is more neocon than Obama but less so than Nuland, forced Nuland out of office; and there is an extensive interview of her at Politico, headlined “She Was at the Top of the State Department. Now She’s Ready to Talk.”, which opens:

Victoria Nuland has long been known as a relentless, even pugnacious, U.S. diplomat, with a strong belief in American power. The approach sometimes got her in trouble, but it rarely held her back.

Nuland recently left the State Department after serving at its highest levels, first as the Biden administration’s undersecretary of State for political affairs, and, for several months, acting deputy secretary of State. She previously was a career diplomat who held an array of roles under presidents both Republican and Democratic; her first posting more than three decades ago was as a consular officer in China.

In an exit interview with POLITICO Magazine, Nuland discussed her time in public service — dismissing chatter that she was passed over for a promotion — as well as her views on where American foreign policy has gone wrong and right.

Notably, she said the United States was not quick enough to realize and prevent the expansionist ambitions of both Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping.

A longtime champion of Ukraine and the effort to counter Russia, she also warned about the perils of Donald Trump blowing up NATO if he wins back the White House in November.

“Don’t throw it out,” she said of the trans-Atlantic alliance, “because you would never be able to re-create it again.”

She starts and ends with a position that assumes her Government is the model that the entire world needs to follow and to subordinate itself to.

With regard to both Russia and China, after the end of the Cold War, the prevailing wisdom among all of us — right, left and center — was that if you could knit Moscow and Beijing into the open and free global order that we had benefited from for so many years, that they would become prosperous, and they would become strong contributing members of that order. And that’s what we tried for a very long time.

That works if you have a leadership that is fundamentally accepting the current system. But once you have leaders who are telling their populations that this system keeps their country down, doesn’t allow it to have its rightful place, that has a territorial definition of greatness, that is bent on economic, political and or military coercion — that’s antithetical to this order, and then our policy has to change.

She says that Russia is losing the war in Ukraine, and that Ukraine will win it, and that “both we and the Israelis knew too little about the terror state that had been established in Gaza.” The questioner notes: “You’re going to be teaching at Columbia, the epicenter of campus protests over this situation.” I wonder if the billionaires who control academia think that decisions such as this will extend or contract their empire. At the end, Nuland says:

What we want from the rest of the world is they see us leading in a manner that advances their own security, advances their own prosperity, creates this community of nations that can handle global problems — whether they are terrorist problems, whether they are health problems, whether they’re environmental problems — and we do it in a primarily self-interested but unselfish way, and we’re creating that community.

They should only fear us if they’re opponents of a largely liberal democratic way of advancing human prosperity. And in that context, if they are viciously invading a neighbor, if they are coercing a little state because they can, then I hope they would fear our reaction and the reaction that we will build with other democracies who want to protect the system that favors freedom.

When she says “viciously invading a neighbor, if they are coercing a little state because they can,” I wonder what she thinks about what her Government did to Iraq when she was Vice President Dick Cheney’s top foreign-policy advisor under President G.W. Bush — and which invasion she wanted — and did to Libya in 2011 while she was busy planning the overthrow of Ukraine’s and of Syria’s Governments. Tens if not hundreds of millions of people around the world become dead or maimed, and otherwise have their lives destroyed, because of what Nuland and her fellow neoconservatives who operate America’s foreign policy do. And it all costs tens of trillions of U.S. taxpayer dollars to carry out.

Then comes the final question: “Do you ever plan to go back into government?” She replies:

I love what I did for 35 years. I’ve always loved it. And I continue to love it. So in the right circumstances, of course.

In other words: she was forced out, and wants to get back in.


Investigative historian Eric Zuesse’s latest book, AMERICA’S EMPIRE OF EVIL: Hitler’s Posthumous Victory, and Why the Social Sciences Need to Change, is about how America took over the world after World War II in order to enslave it to U.S.-and-allied billionaires. Their cartels extract the world’s wealth by control of not only their ‘news’ media but the social ‘sciences’ — duping the public.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *